City Hall's Sausage Machine

 

Portland City Hall (Circa 1915)

There is a dispute about who first compared sausage-making to the legislative process in the 1800s, but it doesn’t matter; the essence still holds.

 Heading into the final stage of revising Portland’s rules for regulating historical landmarks and historic districts, two city commissioners have suggested three amendments that finally provide some hope for the preservation community.  In short, the sausage may have a better flavor as a result.

Two proposed amendments from Commissioner Mingus Mapps would thwart attempts by the city Planning and Sustainability Commission to restrict recommendations from the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission to the City Council, and to dilute the professional qualifications required of landmarks commission members.

One Mapps amendment would leave qualifications for landmarks commissioners the same as they have been for the past 50 years.  The other would give both the landmarks commission and the PSC equal opportunities to advise the City Council on matters involving proposed new historic districts or reducing the size of current districts.  Recent history makes it clear that the developer-driven PSC as now composed likely would never support historic preservation. 

 Both of these amendments are consistent with good public administration and should be adopted by the council.  It remains to be seen, however, whether three votes from the five council members can be mustered in support. A vote likely will be taken on Dec. 15, so time is limited for the preservation community to express support for these amendments by email to city commissioners or by oral testimony on the 15th.

You can sign up to testify to the City Council via Zoom.  Register here:

https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_S1s7hjhvSU2jtgSIb3VzsA

Another vital amend, this one from Commissioner Carmen Rubio, would revise rules for deciding when to demolish a landmark by removing a current standard allowing demolition when a building has “no reasonable economic value.”  We believe the “no economic value” standard can promote intentional neglect by an owner wanting to demolish an important historical structure by ignoring routine maintenance.

The importance of the “no reasonable economic value” rule came to the City Council’s attention recently in the case of the Yamaguchi Hotel building that later served as home of the Blanchet House charity that provides food and shelter for the needy.  After moving to a new building Blanchet House did little or nothing to maintain the old building and then sought demolition saying it no longer had economic value.

 The Rubio amendment lists several criteria that would be weighed in deciding whether to demolish a historic building.  They would include the economic status of the building as well as its age, condition, historic integrity, historic significance, design or construction rarity, options for rehabilitation, or reuse of the resource and value to the community and association with historically marginalized individuals or communities.  In addition, the city could consider the merits of a development proposed to replace the historic property.

 Those are all genuine, legitimate factors to be considered.

There are eight proposed to the Historic Resources Code Project, but the three addressed here are the most important for the preservation community.  They are numbered 3, 5 and 6 on the list. 

Those of you willing to support proposed amendments 3, 5 and 6 can email your support to council members listed below.  Don't wait; there is little time left.  I could not find a working email address for Mayor Ted Wheeler.  

Commissioner Carmen Rubio Comm.Rubio@portlandoregon.gov

Commissioner Dan Ryan CommissionerRyanOffice@portlandoregon.gov

Commissioner Mingus Mapps MappsOffice@portlandoregon.gov

Commissioner Joann Hardesty joann@portlandoregon.gov

 -----Fred Leeson

 Join Building on History’s mailing list by writing “add me” to fredleeson@hotmail.com